Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles

Federal RegisterAug 14, 2002

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86, 90, 1045, 1051, and 1068

[AMS-FRL-7253-8]

RIN 2060-AJ90

Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

In this action, we are proposing evaporative emissions standards for marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines (including sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft) and we discuss our plans to propose standards in the future regulating exhaust emissions from spark-ignition marine engines. This action also proposes new emission standards for highway motorcycles, including motorcycles of less than 50 cubic centimeters in displacement. This action is related to our proposal for emission standards for several sources that cause or contribute to air pollution. On October 5, 2001 we published proposed standards for large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines.

Nationwide, marine evaporative hydrocarbon (HC) emissions contribute to ozone, and motorcycles contribute to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment. These pollutants cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. The proposed standards would help states achieve and maintain air quality standards. In addition, the proposed evaporative emission standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and the proposed motorcycle exhaust standards would help reduce exposure to CO, air toxics, and PM for operators and other people close to emission sources. They would also help address other environmental problems, such as visibility impairment in our national parks.

We believe that manufacturers would be able to maintain or even improve the performance of their products in certain respects when producing engines and vessels meeting the proposed standards. In fact, we estimate that the evaporative emission standards would reduce fuel consumption by enough to offset any costs associated with the evaporative emission control technology. Overall, the gasoline fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology resulting from the rule proposed in this notice are estimated to be about 31 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in (2030). The proposal also has several provisions to address the unique limitations of small-volume manufacturers.

DATES:

Comments:

Send written comments on this proposal by November 8, 2002. See Section VII for more information about written comments.

Hearings:

We will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2002 starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to highway motorcycles. In addition, we will hold a public hearing on September 23, 2002 starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to marine vessels. If you want to testify at a hearing, notify the contact person listed below at least ten days before the hearing. See Section VII for more information about public hearings.

ADDRESSES:

Comments:

You may send written comments in paper form or by e-mail. We must receive them by November 8, 2002. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible) to the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e-mail to “MCNPRM@epa.gov.” In your correspondence, refer to Docket A-2000-02.

Hearings:

We will hold a public hearing for issues related to highway motorcycles on September 17 at the Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest, Ypsilanti, Michigan (734-487-2000).

We will host a public hearing for issues related to marine vessels on September 23 at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, Michigan (734-214-4334). See Section VII, “Public Participation” below for more information on the comment procedure and public hearings.

Docket:

EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review in Public Docket Nos. A-2000-01 and A-2000-02 at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone (734) 214-4334; FAX: (734) 214-4816; E-mail:

borushko.margaret@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or introduce into commerce any of the engines or vehicles that would be subject to the proposed standards. These include: Marine vessels with spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles. This proposed action would also affect companies buying engines for installation in vessels and motorcycles. There are also proposed requirements that apply to those who rebuild any of the affected engines. Regulated categories and entities include:

Category

NAICS codes

SIC codes

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry

3732

Manufacturers of marine vessels.

Industry

811310

7699

Engine repair and maintenance.

Industry

336991

Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers.

Industry

421110

Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully

examine the proposed regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents

The preamble, regulatory language, Draft Regulatory Support Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this proposed rule is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes official

Federal Register

notices and related documents on the secondary Web site listed below.

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/

(either select desired date or use Search feature)

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Overview

B. How Is this Document Organized?

C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles are Covered in This Proposal?

D. What Requirements Are We Proposing?

E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

F. Putting This Proposal into Perspective

II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions from Covered Engines

A. Background

B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards?

C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources?

III. Evaporative Emission Control from Boats

A. Overview

B. Boats/Fuel Systems Covered By This Proposal

C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements

D. Demonstrating Compliance

E. General Compliance Provisions

F. Proposed Testing Requirements

G. Special Compliance Provisions

H. Technological Feasibility

IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines

V. Highway Motorcycles

A. Overview

B. Motorcycles Covered by This Proposal

C. Proposed Standards

D. Special Compliance Provisions

E. Technological Feasibility of the Standards

VI. Projected Impacts

A. Environmental Impact

B. Economic Impact

C. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced

D. Additional Benefits

VII. Public Participation

A. How Do I Submit Comments?

B. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order 12866)

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Intergovernmental Relations

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)

G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211)

I. Plain Language

I. Introduction

A. Overview

Air pollution is a serious threat to the health and well-being of millions of Americans and imposes a large burden on the U.S. economy. Ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter are linked to potentially serious respiratory health problems, especially respiratory effects and environmental degradation, including visibility impairment in our precious national parks. Over the past quarter century, state and federal representatives have established emission-control programs that significantly reduce emissions from individual sources. Many of these sources now pollute at only a small fraction of their pre-control rates. This proposal is part of a new effort that further addresses these air-pollution concerns by proposing national standards regulating emissions from several types of nonroad engines and vehicles that are currently unregulated by establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, as required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3). The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 which included industrial spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines.

See 66 FR 51098.

This action, the second part, includes evaporative emission standards for marine vessels with spark-ignition engines and their fuel systems.

In addition, we are proposing new emission standards for highway motorcycles. The proposed standards for motorcycles reflect the development of emission-control technology that has occurred since we last set standards for these engines in 1978. Including highway motorcycles in this proposal is also appropriate as we consider new emission standards for the counterpart off-highway motorcycle models.

Diesel-cycle engines, referred to simply as “diesel engines” in this document, may also be referred to as compression-ignition (or CI) engines. These engines typically operate on diesel fuel, but other fuels may also be used. Otto-cycle engines (referred to here as spark-ignition or SI engines) typically operate on gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or natural gas.

Nationwide, the sources covered by this proposal are significant contributors to mobile-source air pollution. Marine evaporative emissions currently account for 1.3 percent of mobile-source hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, and highway motorcycles currently account for about 1.1 percent of mobile-source HC emissions, 0.4 percent of mobile-source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 0.1 percent of mobile-source oxides of nitrogen (NO

) emissions, and 0.1 percent of mobile-source particulate matter (PM) emissions.

The proposed standards would reduce exposure to these emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated with ambient ozone and PM levels, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. In addition, the proposed standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and PM for persons who operate or who work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these sources. They would also help address other environmental problems associated with these sources, such as visibility impairment in our national parks and other wilderness areas where recreational vehicles and marine vessels are often used.

While we characterize emissions of hydrocarbons, this can be used as a surrogate for volatile organic compounds (VOC), which is broader group of compounds.

This proposal follows EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulmaking (ANRPM) published on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76797). In that Advance Notice, we provided an initial overview of possible regulatory strategies for nonroad vehicles and engines and invited early input to the process of developing standards. We received comments on the Advance Notice from a wide variety of stakeholders, including the engine industry, the equipment industry, various governmental bodies, environmental groups, and the general public. These comments are available for public viewing in Docket A-2000-01. The Advance Notice, the related comments, and other new information provide the framework for this proposal.

B. How Is This Document Organized?

This proposal covers both marine vessels and highway motorcycles and many readers may only be interested in one or the other of theses applications. We have attempted to organize the document in a way that allows each reader to focus on the application of particular interest. The Air Quality discussion in Section II is general in nature, however, and applies to the proposal as a whole.

The next three sections contain our proposal for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles that are the subject of this action. Section III presents the proposed evaporative emission program for marine vessels using spark-ignition engines. Section IV discusses our intentions for controlling exhaust emissions from spark-ignition marine engines in the future. Section V contains our proposed highway motorcycle standards.

Section VI summarizes the projected impacts and a discussion of the benefits of this proposal. Finally, Sections VII and VIII contain information about public participation, how we satisfied our administrative requirements, and the statutory provisions and legal authority for this proposal.

The remainder of this Section I summarizes important background information about this proposal, including the engines covered, the proposed standards, and why we are proposing them.

C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal?

1. Which Marine Vessels Are Covered in This Proposal?

We are proposing evaporative emission requirements for marine vessels that use any kind of spark ignition (SI) engine, including boats using sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft. These vessels are currently unregulated for evaporative emissions. Although we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for SI marine, we discuss our intent for a future emission control program.

This proposal covers new vessels that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported.

A more detailed discussion of the meaning of the terms “new,” “imported,” as well as other terms that help define the scope of application of this proposal, is contained in Section III.B of this preamble.

For this proposal, we consider the United States to include the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

2. Which Highway Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal?

We are proposing standards for new highway motorcycles, including those with engines with displacements of less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc). The federal emission standards for highway motorcycles were established over twenty years ago. Technology has advanced significantly over the last two decades, and many advancements are currently being used on highway motorcycles in California and elsewhere in the world. Despite these advancements, highway motorcycles currently produce more harmful emissions per mile than driving a car, or even a large SUV. (This discrepancy will become even larger when the Tier 2 emissions standards for passenger cars and SUVs take effect starting in 2004, when SUVs will have to meet the same set of standards as passenger cars.) Present technology already in use on highway motorcycles can be applied easily and cost-effectively to achieve additional improvements in emissions. California, which has separately regulated motorcycles, recently adopted more advanced emissions standards in several stages. New emission standards and test procedures have also been proposed or finalized internationally. Proposing more stringent standards nationwide will reduce emissions from these engines, which operate predominantly in warmer weather when ozone formation is a greater concern. In addition, we believe it is important to consider the emissions standards for highway motorcycles in the context of setting standards for off-highway motorcycles. Some degree of consistency between the standards for these related products may allow manufacturers to transfer technologies across product lines. (At the same time, we recognize that there are other factors which may argue for treating these categories differently.)

D. What Requirements Are We Proposing?

Clean Air Act section 213 directs EPA to establish standards which achieve the greatest degree of emission reductions from nonroad engines and vehicles achievable through the application of technology that will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Other requirements such as certification procedures, engine and vehicle labeling, and warranty requirements are necessary for implementing the proposed program in an effective way.

For vessels that use spark-ignition marine engines, we are proposing emission standards, beginning in 2008, that would reduce evaporative hydrocarbon emissions by more than 80 percent. To meet these standards, manufacturers would need to design and produce fuel systems that prevent gasoline vapors from escaping. While we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for spark-ignition marine engines at this time, we are participating with California and industry representatives in a technology development program that is evaluating the feasibility of using catalyst controls on these engines. We considered setting emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines in this rulemaking, but have decided not to pursue these standards at this time. We instead intend to propose exhaust emission standards for these engines after the results of this development program are available. We also intend at that time to review, and if appropriate, propose to update emission standards for outboard and personal watercraft engines based on the results of the ongoing catalyst test program.

With respect to highway motorcycles, section 202(a)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act states, in part: “In any case in which such standards are promulgated for such emissions from motorcycles as a separate class or category, the Administrator, in promulgating such standards, shall consider the need to achieve equivalency of emission reductions between motorcycles and other motor vehicles to the maximum extent practicable.” Given that it has been more than twenty years since the first (and only) federal emission regulations for motorcycles were implemented, we believe it is consistent with the Act to set new standards for highway motorcycles. Thus, for highway motorcycles we are proposing to harmonize with the California program, but with some additional flexibilities. This is a two-phase program that would result in reductions of HC+NO

of about 50 percent when fully phased in.

E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

There are important public health and welfare reasons supporting the standards proposed in this document. As described in Section II, these sources contribute to air pollution which causes public health and welfare problems. Emissions from these engines contribute to ground level ozone and ambient CO and PM levels. Exposure to ground level ozone, CO, and PM can cause serious respiratory problems. These emissions also contribute to other serious

environmental problems, including visibility impairment.

F. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective

This proposal should be considered in the broader context of EPA's nonroad and highway vehicle emission-control programs; state-level programs, particularly in California; and international efforts. Each of these are described in more detail below.

1. EPA's Emission-Control Programs

a. EPA's nonroad process. Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs us to study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether these emissions “cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Section 213(a)(2) further required us to determine whether emissions of CO, VOC, and NO

from all nonroad engines significantly contribute to ozone or CO emissions in more than one nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad engines were significant contributors, section 213(a)(3) then requires us to establish emission standards for classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that in our judgment cause or contribute to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under section 213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines that we find contribute significantly to air pollution.

We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study, required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1), in November 1991.

On June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative determination under section 213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one nonattainment area. We also determined that these engines make a significant contribution to PM and smoke emissions that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In the same document, we set a first phase of emission standards (now referred to as Tier 1 standards) for land-based nonroad diesel engines rated at or above 37 kW. We recently added a more stringent set of Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels for new land-based nonroad diesel engines at or above 37 kW and adopted Tier 1 standards for land-based nonroad diesel engines less than 37 kW. Our other emission-control programs for nonroad engines are listed in Table I.F-1. This proposal takes another step toward the comprehensive nonroad engine emission-control strategy envisioned in the Act by proposing an emission-control program for the remaining unregulated nonroad engines.

This study is avaialble in docket A-92-28.

Table I.F-1.—EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs

Engine category

Final rule

Date

Land-based diesel engines ≥ 37 kW—Tier 1

56 FR 31306

June 17, 1994.

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW—Phase 1

60 FR 34581

July 3, 1995.

Spark-ignition marine

61 FR 52088

October 4, 1996.

Locomotives

63 FR 18978

April 16, 1998.

Land-based diesel engines—Tier 1 and Tier 2 for engines < 37 kW—Tier 2 and Tier 3 for engines ≥ 37 kW

63 FR 56968

October 23, 1998.

Commercial marine diesel

64 FR 73300

December 29, 1999.

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Non-handheld)—Phase 2

64 FR 15208

March 30, 1999.

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Handheld)—Phase 2

65 FR 24268

April 25, 2000.

b. National standards for marine engines. In the October 1996 final rule for spark-ignition marine engines, we set standards only for outboard and personal watercraft engines. We decided not to finalize emission standards for sterndrive or inboard marine engines at that time. Uncontrolled emission levels from sterndrive and inboard marine engines were already significantly lower than the outboard and personal watercraft engines. We did, however, leave open the possibility of revisiting the need for emission standards for sterndrive and inboard engines in the future.

c. National standards for highway motorcycles. National standards for highway motorcycles were first established in the 1978 model year. Interim standards were effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years, and final standards took effect with the 1980 model year. These standards remain in effect today, unchanged from more than two decades ago. These standards, which have resulted in the phase-out of two-stroke engines for highway motorcycles above 50cc displacement, achieved significant reductions in emissions. The level of technology required to meet these standards is widely considered to be comparable to the pre-catalyst technology in the automobile. However, for the past two decades, other agencies in Europe, Asia, and California have caused motorcycle emission controls to keep some pace with the available technology. It is clear that the impact of the current federal standards on technology was fully realized by the mid-1980's, and that the international and other efforts have been the recent driving factor in technology development for motorcycle emissions control.

2. State Initiatives

Under Clean Air Act section 209, California has the authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. California may also regulate emissions from nonroad engines, with the exception of new engines used in locomotives and new engines used in farm and construction equipment rated under 130 kW.

So far, the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) has adopted requirements for four groups of nonroad engines: (1) Diesel- and Otto-cycle small off-road engines rated under 19 kW; (2) new land-based nonroad diesel engines rated over 130 kW; (3) land-based nonroad recreational engines, including all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts, and other similar vehicles; and (4) new nonroad SI engines rated over 19 kW. They have approved a voluntary registration and control program for existing portable equipment.

The Clean Air Act limits the role states may play in regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad engines. California is permitted to establish emission standards for new motor vehicles and most nonroad engines; other states may adopt California's programs (sections 209 and 177 of the Act). The Act specifies the power rating minimum in terms of horsepower for farm and construction equipment (175 hp = 130 kW).

Other states may adopt emission standards set by California ARB, but are otherwise preempted from setting

emission standards for new engines or vehicles. In contrast, there is generally no federal preemption of state initiatives related to the way individuals use individual engines or vehicles.

a. SI Marine engines. California ARB developed exhaust emission standards for SI marine engines through two rulemakings. In 1998, they adopted standards for outboards and personal watercraft that have three stages. Beginning with the 2001 model year, manufacturers must meet the 2006 EPA national averaging standard for engines sold in California. In addition, they require two more phases in 2004 and 2008 which reduce the standards an additional 20 and 60 percent, respectively, beyond the EPA standards.

Last year, California ARB also adopted exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines. These standards cap HC+NO

emissions at 15 g/kW-hr beginning in 2003. In 2007, 45 percent of each manufacturer's product line must meet 5 g/kW-hr HC+NO

. This production fraction becomes 75 percent in 2008 and 100 percent in 2009. Manufacturers will likely need to use catalytic converters to meet this standard.

As part of the emission-control program for sterndrive and inboard marine engines, California ARB has committed to performing a review of emission-control technology in conjunction with the industry, U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA. They intend to hold a technology review in 2003, and if necessary, hold another technology review in 2005. The technology review will focus on applying catalytic control to marine engines operating in boats on the water. EPA is working with these groups to continue to assess technical concerns related to introducing catalysts on these marine engines.

b. Highway motorcycles. Motorcycle emission standards in California were originally identical to the federal standards. However, California ARB has revised their standards several times to bring them to their current levels. In the 1982 model year the standards were modified to tighten the HC standard from 5.0 g/km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/km, depending upon engine displacement. California adopted an evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/test for 1983 and later model year motorcycles, and later amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year motorcycles, resulting in standards of 1.0 g/km HC for engines under 700cc and 1.4 g/km HC for 700cc and larger engines.

In 1999 California ARB finalized new standards for Class III highway motorcycles that will take effect in two phases—“Tier 1” standards starting with the 2004 model year, followed by “Tier 2”standards starting with the 2008 model year. The Tier 1 standard is 1.4 g/km HC+NO

, and the Tier 2 standard is 0.8 g/km HC+NO

. The CO standard remains at 12.0 g/km.

3. Actions in Other Countries

a. European action—Recreational Marine Engines. The European Commission has proposed emission standards for recreational marine engines, including both diesel and gasoline engines. These requirements would apply to all new engines sold in member countries. The numerical emission standards for SD/I marine engines, are shown in Table I.F-2. Table I.F-2 also presents average baseline emissions based on data that we have collected. These data are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We have received comment that we should apply these standards in the U.S., but the proposed European emission standards for SD/I marine engines may not result in a decrease in emissions, and based on emissions information we now have, would in some cases allow an increase in emissions from current designs of engines operated in the U.S.

Table I.F-2.—Proposed European Emission Standards for Four-Stroke Spark-Ignition Marine Engines

Pollutant

Emission standard

(g/kW-hr)

Baseline emissions

(g/kW-hr)

15.0

9.7

7.2

5.8

154

141

For a 150 kW engine; decreases slightly with increasing engine power rating.

b. Highway motorcycles. Under the auspices of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) there is an ongoing effort to develop a global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC). The objective of this work is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that accurately represents the in-use driving characteristics of motorcycles. The United States is also a participating member of UN/ECE. This is an ongoing process that EPA is actively participating in, but that will not likely result in an action until sometime in 2003 or 2004. If an international test procedure is agreed upon by the participating nations, we plan to initiate a rulemaking process to propose adopting the global test cycle as part of the U.S. regulations.

The European Union (EU) recently finalized a new phase of motorcycle standards, which will start in 2003, and are considering a second phase to start in 2006. The 2003 European standards are more stringent than the existing Federal standards, being somewhat comparable to the California Tier 1 standards taking effect in 2004. The standards being considered for 2006, along with a revised test cycle (as an interim cycle to bridge between the current EU cycle and a possible WMTC cycle in the future) are likely to be proposed soon by the EU. As of April 2002 the 2006 European standards and test cycle are being considered and debated by the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Many other nations, particularly in southeast Asia where low-displacement two-stroke motorcycles are ubiquitous, have established standards that could be considered quite stringent. Taiwan, in particular, is often noted for having some of the most stringent standards in the world, but India, China, Japan, and Thailand, are moving quickly towards controlling what is, in those nations, a significant contributor to air pollution problems.

4. Recently Proposed EPA Standards for Nonroad Engines

This proposal is the second part of an effort to control emissions from nonroad engines that are currently unregulated and for updating Federal emissions standards for highway motorcycles. The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 for emission control from large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational

vehicles using spark-ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. The October 5, 2001 proposal includes general provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 1068 that address the applicability of nonroad engine standards, which could be relevant to commenters.

With regard to Large SI engines, we proposed a two-phase program. The first phase of the standards, to go into effect in 2004, are the same as those recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board. In 2007, we propose to supplement these standards by setting limits that would require optimizing the same technologies but would be based on a transient test cycle. New requirements for evaporative emissions and engine diagnostics would also start in 2007.

For recreational vehicles, we proposed emission standards for snowmobiles separately from off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. For snowmobiles, we proposed a first phase of standards for HC and CO emissions based on the use of clean carburetion or 2-stroke electronic fuel injection (EFI) technology, and a second phase of emission standards for snowmobiles that would involve use of direct fuel injection 2-stroke and some 4-stroke technology. For off highway motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, we proposed standards based mainly on moving these engines from 2-stroke to 4-stroke technology. In addition, we proposed a second phase of standards for all-terrain vehicles that could require some catalyst use.

For marine diesel engines, we proposed to extend our commercial marine diesel engine standards to diesel engines used on recreational vessels. These standards would phase in beginning in 2006.

II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions From Covered Engines

A. Background

This proposal contains regulatory strategies to control evaporative emissions from marine vessels that use spark ignition engines. Spark-ignition marine vessels include vessels that use sterndrive and inboard engines as well as outboards and personal watercraft. Most of these vessels are recreational, but there are some commercial vessels that use spark-ignition engines as well. The standards we are proposing in this document for marine vessels may require changes to the fuel system or fuel tank. We are also proposing revised standards for highway motorcycles. The current HC and CO emission standards for highway motorcycles were set in 1978 and are based on 1970s technology. The proposed standards are harmonized to California's emission limits, but also include new requirements for under 50 cc motorcycles.

Nationwide, marine vessels and on-highway motorcycles are an important source of mobile-source air pollution (see section II-C). We determined that marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines cause or contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide pollution in more than on nonattainment area in an action dated February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4600). These engines continue to contribute to these problems because they are primarily used in warm weather and therefore their HC, NO

, CO, and PM emissions contribute to ozone formation and ambient PM and CO levels, and because they are primarily used in marinas and commercial ports that are frequently located in nonattainment areas such as Chicago and New York. Evaporative emissions from marine vessels are also significant for similar reasons and because the emissions occur all the time rather than just when the engine is running. Similarly, on-highway motorcycles are typically used in warm, dry weather when their HC and NO

emissions are most likely to form ozone, thus adding to ground-level ozone levels and contributing to ozone nonattainment.

We expect that implementation of the proposed standards would result in about a 50 percent reduction in HC emissions and NO

emissions from highway motorcycles in 2020. We expect that the proposed standards would result in about a 56 percent reduction in evaporative HC emissions from marine vessels using spark-ignition engines in 2020 (see Section VI below for more details). These emission reductions would reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, and fine particles, which is a health concern and contributes to visibility impairment. The standards would also reduce personal exposure for people who operate or who work with or are otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. As summarized below and described more fully in the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal, many types of hydrocarbons are air toxics. By reducing these emissions, the proposed standards would provide assistance to states facing ozone air quality problems, which can cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. States are required to develop plans to address visibility impairment in national parks, and the reductions proposed in this rule would assist states in those efforts.

B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards?

Marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles generate emissions that contribute to ozone formation and ambient levels of PM, and air toxics. This section summarizes the general health effects of these pollutants. National inventory estimates are set out in Section II.C, and estimates of the expected impact of the proposed control programs are described in Section VI. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal for more in-depth discussions.

1. Health and Welfare Effects Associated with Ground Level Ozone and its Precursors

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO

are precursors in the photochemical reaction which forms tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of VOCs and NO

in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions.

A large body of evidence shows that ozone can cause harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath, which affect people with compromised respiratory systems most severely. When inhaled, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung function of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; produce changes in lung tissue and structure; may increase hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Children and outdoor workers are likely to be exposed to elevated ambient levels of ozone during exercise and, therefore, are at a greater risk of experiencing adverse health effects. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and reducing productivity in forest ecosystems.

There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is associated with exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms. Increases in ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma, worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage. The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children and for people with compromised respiratory systems.

Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in the United States. In 1999, 90.8 million people (1990 census) lived in 31 areas designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission-control programs. However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health concern throughout the nation.

National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at

http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/.

The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-64.

Over the last decade, declines in ozone levels were found mostly in urban areas, where emissions are heavily influenced by controls on mobile sources and their fuels. Twenty-three metropolitan areas have realized a decline in ozone levels since 1989, but at the same time ozone levels in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million people have increased.

Regionally, California and the Northeast have recorded significant reductions in peak ozone levels, while four other regions (the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Central and Pacific Northwest) have seen ozone levels increase.

National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 28. This document is available at

http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/.

The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A.-63.

The highest ambient concentrations are currently found in suburban areas, consistent with downwind transport of emissions from urban centers. Concentrations in rural areas have risen to the levels previously found only in cities. Particularly relevant to this proposal, ozone levels at 17 of our National Parks have increased, and in 1998, ozone levels in two parks, Shenandoah National Park and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, were 30 to 40 percent higher than the ozone NAAQS over part of the last decade.

National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 32. This document is available at

http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/

. The data from the trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-63.

To estimate future ozone levels, we refer to the modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy-duty highway engine and fuel standards.

We performed ozone air quality modeling for the entire Eastern U.S. covering metropolitan areas from Texas to the Northeast.

This ozone air quality model was based upon the same modeling system as was used in the Tier 2 air quality analysis, with the addition of updated inventory estimates for 2007 and 2030. The results of this modeling were examined for those 37 areas in the East for which EPA's modeling predicted exceedances in 2007, 2020, and/or 2030 and the current 1-hour design values are above the standard or within 10 percent of the standard. This photochemical ozone modeling for 2020 predicts exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard in 32 areas with a total of 89 million people (1999 census) after accounting for light- and heavy-duty on-highway control programs.

We expect the NO

and HC control strategies contained in this proposal for marine vessels that use spark-ignition engines and highway motorcycles will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard.

Additional information about this modeling can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Contro Requirements, document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. This document is available at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents

and in Docket No. 1-2000-01, Document No. II-A-13.

We also performed ozone air quality modeling for the western United States but, as described further in the air quality technical support document, model predictions were well below corresponding ambient concentrations for out heavy-duty engine standards and fuel sulfur control rulemaking. Because of poor model performance for this region of the country, the results of the Western ozone modeling were not relied on for that rule.

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, US EPA, EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000, at II-14, Table II.A-2. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document Number II-A-13. This document is also available at

http://www.epa.gpa.gov/otaq/diesel/htm#documents.

In addition to the health effects described above, there exists a large body of scientific literature that shows that harmful effects can occur from sustained levels of ozone exposure much lower than 0.125 ppm.

Studies of prolonged exposures, those lasting about 7 hours, show health effects from prolonged and repeated exposures at moderate levels of exertion to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm. The health effects at these levels of exposure include transient pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation.

Additional information about theses studies can be found in Chapter 2 of “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” December 2000, EPA420-R-00-026. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document Number II-A-13. This document is also available at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.

Prolonged and repeated ozone concentrations at these levels are common in areas throughout the country, and are found both in areas that are exceeding, and areas that are not exceeding, the 1-hour ozone standard. Areas with these high concentrations are more widespread than those in nonattainment for that 1-hour ozone standard. Monitoring data indicates that 334 counties in 33 states exceeded these levels in 1997-99.

The Agency's most recent photochemical ozone modeling forecast that 111 million people are predicted to live in areas that are at risk of exceeding these moderate ozone levels for prolonged periods of time in 2020 after accounting for expected inventory reductions due to controls on light- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.

A copy of this data can be found in Air Docket A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-80.

Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric Ginsburg, EPA, “Summary of Model-Adjusted Ambient Concentrations for Certain Levels of Ground-Level Ozone over Prolonger Periods,” November 22, 2000, at Table C, Control Scenario—2020 Populations In Eastern Metropolitan Counties with Predicted Daily 8-Hour Ozone greater than or equal to 0.080 ppm. Docket A-2000-01, Document Number II-B-13.

2. Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Particulate Matter

Highway motorcycles contribute to ambient particulate matter through direct emissions of particulate matter in the exhaust. Both marine vessels and highway motorcycles contribute to indirect formation of PM through their emissions of organic carbon, especially HC. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending on the area of the country.

Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to and less than 10 microns are called PM

. Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM

2.5

), and coarse fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10 microns.

Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems. Scientific studies suggest a likely causal role of ambient particulate matter (which is attributable to several of sources including mobile sources) in contributing to a series of health effects. The key health effects categories associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable human noncancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as respiratory symptoms (cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease (cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and increased allergenicity are also seen. Epidemiology studies have found an association between exposure to fine particles and such health effects as premature mortality or hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary disease.

PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks. Other environmental impacts occur when particles deposit onto soils, plants, water or materials. For example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of those environments. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including culturally important objects such as carved monuments and statues. It promotes and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials such as concrete and limestone.

The NAAQS for PM

were established in 1987. The most recent PM

monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM

nonattainment areas with a projected population of 23 million violated the PM

NAAQS in the period 1997-99. In addition, there are 25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient concentrations of PM

above the PM

NAAQS.

EPA adopted a policy in 1996 that allows areas with PM

exceedances that are attributable to natural events to retain their designation as unclassifiable if the State is taking all reasonable measures to safeguard public health regardless of the sources of PM

emissions.

Current 1999 PM

2.5

monitored values, which cover about a third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 40 million people live in areas where long-term ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 16 μg/m

(37 percent of the population in the areas with monitors).

According to our national modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996 population) living in areas with modeled annual average PM

2.5

concentrations at or above 16 μg/m

(29 percent of the population).

This 16 μg/m

threshold is the low end of the range of long term average PM

2.5

concentrations in cities where statistically significant associations were found with serious health effects, including premature mortality.

Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter,” November 15, 2000. Air Docket A-2000-01, Docket No. II-B-12. For information regarding estimates for future PM

2.5

levels, See information about the Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) and our modeling protocols, which can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Controls Requirements, document EPA 420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. A-II-13. This document is also available at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.

Also see Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A-99-06, Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPs, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6, 2000, Table P-2. Docket Number 2000-01, Document Number II-B-14.

Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years,” December 6, 2000. Air Docket A-2000-01, Docket No. II-B-14.

EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013. Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm.

We expect the PM reductions that result from control strategies contained in this proposal will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the PM NAAQS.

3. Health Effects Associated with Air Toxics

In addition to the human health and welfare impacts described above, emissions from the engines covered by this proposal also contain several Mobile Source Air Toxics, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein.

The health effects of these air toxics are described in more detail in Chapter 1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this rule. Additional information can also be found in the Technical Support Document for our final Mobile Source Air Toxics rule.

The hydrocarbon controls contained in this proposal are expected to reduce exposure to air toxics and therefore may help reduce the impact of these engines on cancer and noncancer health effects.

EPA recently finalized a list of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics, including VOCS, metals, and diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM+DEOG). 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001.

See our Mobile Source Air Toxics final rulemaking, 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001, and the Technical Support Document for that rulemaking. Docket No. A-2000-01, Documents Nos. II-A-42 and II-A-30.

C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources?

The spark-ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards contribute to the national inventories of pollutants that are associated with the health and public welfare effects described in Section II.B. To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model. This model computes nationwide, state, and county emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed using information on the certification levels of current motorcycles and updated information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry. A more detailed description of the modeling and our estimation methodology can be found in the

Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.

Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles covered by this proposal are summarized in Table II.C-1. This table shows the relative contributions of the different mobile-source categories to the overall national mobile-source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile sources, evaporative emissions from spark-ignition marine vessels contribute about 1.3 percent of HC. Highway motorcycles contribute about 1.1 percent, 0.1 percent, 0.4 percent, and 0.1 percent of HC, NO

, CO, and PM emissions, respectively, in the year 2000.

Our draft emission projections for 2020 for the spark-ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards show that emissions from these categories are expected to increase over time if left uncontrolled. The projections for 2020 are summarized in Table II.C-2 and indicate that the evaporative emissions from marine vessel are expected to contribute 1.8 percent of mobile source HC, and motorcycles are expected to contribute 2.3 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.6 percent, and 0.1 percent of mobile source HC, NO

, CO, and PM emissions in the year 2020. Population growth and the effects of other regulatory control programs are factored into these projections.

Table II.C-1.—Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2000

[Thousand short tons]

Category

Tons

Percent of mobile source

Tons

Percent of mobile source

Tons

Percent of mobile source

Tons

Percent of mobile source

Highway Motorcycles

0.2

0.9

572

0.6

0.8

0.1

Marine SI Evaporative

0.0

114

1.8

0.0

Marine SI Exhaust

0.9

284

4.6

1,985

2.2

4.4

Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW

486

7.8

348

5.6

2,991

3.3

2.4

0.4

Recreational SI

0.4

1,706

27.7

5,407

3.3

7.5

1.2

Recreation Marine CI

0.6

0.0

1.5

0.2

Nonroad SI < 19 kW

106

1.7

986

16.0

27,352

30.5

12.2

Nonroad CI

1,791

28.8

142

2.3

1,462

1.6

261

41.3

Commercial Marine CI

819

13.2

0.6

160

0.2

7.3

Locomotive

611

9.8

0.6

119

0.1

3.3

Total Nonroad

3,937

3,651

39,482

444

Total Highway

2,050

2,276

48,906

145

Aircraft

232

238

1,387

Total Mobile Sources

6,219

100

6,165

100

89,775

100

632

100

Total Man-Made Sources

16,195

16,234

113,443

3,016

Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources

38%

79%

21%

III. Evaporative Emission Control From Boats

A. Overview

Evaporative emissions refer to hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere when gasoline, or other volatile fuels, evaporate from a fuel system. These emissions come from four primary mechanisms: hot soak, diurnal heating, vapor displacement during refueling, and permeation from tanks and hoses. Hot soak emissions occur when fuel evaporates from hot engine surfaces such as parts of the carburetor as a result of engine operation. These are minimal on fuel-injected engines. Control of hot soak emissions involves the engine manufacturer rather than the tank manufacturer.

Currently, most fuel tanks in boats are vented to atmosphere through vent hoses. Diurnal emissions, which represent about 20 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats, occur as the fuel in the tank and fuel lines heats up due to increases in ambient temperature. As the fuel heats, it forms hydrocarbon vapor which is vented to the atmosphere. Refueling emissions are vapors that are displaced from the fuel tank to the atmosphere when fuel is dispensed into the tank and only represent a small portion of the total evaporative emissions. Permeation refers to when fuel penetrates the material used in the fuel system and is most common through plastic fuel tanks and rubber hoses. This permeation makes up the majority of the evaporative emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. Table III.A-1 presents our national estimates of the evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from boats using spark-ignition engines for 2000.

Table III.A-1.—Estimated Evaporative Emissions From Tanks/Hoses in 2000

Evaporative emission component

HC [tons]

Diurnal breathing losses

22,700

Permeation through the fuel tank

26,600

Permeation through hoses

43,200

Refueling vapor displacement

6,700

Hot Soak

260

Total evaporative emissions

100,000

This section describes the new provisions proposed for 40 CFR part 1045, which would apply only to boat manufacturers and fuel system component manufacturers. This section also discusses proposed test equipment and procedures (for anyone who tests fuel tanks and hoses to show they meet emission standards) and proposed general compliance provisions (for boat manufacturers, fuel system component manufacturers, operators, repairers, and others).

We are proposing performance standards intended to reduce permeation and diurnal evaporative emissions from boats using spark-ignition engines. The proposed standards, which would apply to new boats starting in 2008, are nominally based on manufacturers reducing these sources of evaporative emissions by about 80 percent overall. Because of the many small businesses that manufacture boats and fuel tanks, we are proposing a flexible compliance program that is intended to help minimize the burden of meeting the proposed requirements.

Based on a database maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard, we estimate that there are nearly 1,700 boat builders producing boats that use engines for propulsion. At least 1,200 of these boat builders install gasoline-fueled engines and would therefore be subject to the evaporative emission-control program discussed below. Our understanding is that more than 90 percent of the boat builders identified so far would be considered small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC code 3732. Some of these boat builders construct their own fuel tanks either out of aluminum or fiberglass reinforced plastic. However, the majority of fuel tanks used by boat builders are purchased from fuel tank manufacturers.

We have determined that fuel tank manufacturers sell approximately 550,000 fuel tanks per year for gasoline storage on boats. The market is divided into manufacturers that produce plastic tanks and manufacturers that produce aluminum tanks. We have identified

nine companies that make plastic marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 440,000 units per year. Of these plastic tanks, about 20 percent are portable while the rest are installed. We have determined that there are at least five companies that make aluminum marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 110,000 units per year. All but one of the fuel tank manufacturers that we have identified are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC Code 3713.

Our understanding is that there are four primary manufacturers of marine hose used in fuel supply lines and venting. At least two of these four manufacturers produce hoses for other transportation sources as well and already supply low permeation hoses that would meet our proposed standards. Only one U.S. manufacturer of fill neck hose has been identified. The rest is shipped from overseas.

B. Boats/Fuel Systems Covered by This Proposal

Generally speaking, this proposed rule would cover the fuel systems of all new marine vessels with spark-ignition (SI) engines. We include boats and fuel systems that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported.

In the ANPRM, we discussed exhaust and evaporative emissions from boats using only sterndrive or inboard engines. As discussed later in Section IV, we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for these engines at this time. We are, however, proposing to expand the scope of the evaporative emission standards discussed in the ANPRM, because we see no significant technological differences between fuel tanks and hoses used for sterndrive or inboard engines and those used for other SI marine engines. In fact, fuel tank and hose manufacturers often sell their products without knowing what type of marine engine will be used with it.

1. Why Does This Apply Only to Marine Vessels Using Spark-Ignition Engines?

Spark-ignition marine engines generally use gasoline fuel while compression-ignition marine engines generally use diesel fuel. We are proposing evaporative emission standards only for boats using spark-ignition engines because diesel fuel has low volatility and, therefore, does not evaporate readily. In fact, the evaporative emissions from boats using diesel fuel are already significantly lower than standards we are proposing for boats using spark-ignition marine engines.

2. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to All Vessels Using SI Engines or Only to New Vessels?

The scope of this proposal is broadly set by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3), which instructs us to set emission standards for new nonroad engines and new nonroad vehicles. Generally speaking, the proposed rule is intended to cover all new vessels. Once the emission standards apply to these vessels, individuals or companies must get a certificate of conformity from us before selling them in the United States. This includes importation and any other means of introducing engines and vehicles into commerce. The certificate of conformity (and corresponding label) provide assurance that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines that meet emission standards over the useful life we specify in the regulations.

3. How Do I Know if My Vessel Is New?

We are proposing to define “new” consistent with previous rules. Under the proposed definition, a vessel is considered new until its title has been transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the vessel has been placed into service. Imported vessels would also be considered to be new.

4. When Would Imported Vessels Need to Meet the Proposed Emission Standards?

The proposed emissions standards would apply to all new vessels in the United States. According to Clean Air Act section 216, “new” includes vessels that are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used. All vessels imported for introduction into commerce would need an EPA-issued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with limited exemptions (as described below).

Any marine vessel built after these emission standards take effect and subsequently imported into the U.S. would be a new vessel for the purpose of the regulations proposed in this document. This means it would need to comply with the applicable emission standards. For example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2004, then imported into the United States in 2008, would be considered “new.” This provision is important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by building vessels abroad, transferring their title, and then importing them as used vessels.

5. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to Exported Vessels?

Vessels intended for export would generally not be subject to the requirements of the proposed emission-control program. However, vessels that are exported and subsequently re-imported into the United States would need to be certified.

6. Are There Any New Vessels That Would Not Be Covered?

We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the engines and vehicles covered by this proposal. These include the testing exemption, the manufacturer-owned exemption, the display exemption, and the national security exemption. These exemptions are described in more detail under Section III.E.3. In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider vessels used solely for competition to be nonroad vehicles, so they are exempt from meeting the proposed emission standards.

C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements

Our general goal in designing the proposed standards is to develop a program that will achieve significant emission reductions. The standards are designed to “achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology the Administrator determines will be available for the engines or vehicles to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such technology.” Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act also instructs us to first consider standards equivalent in stringency to standards for comparable motor vehicles or engines (if any) regulated under section 202, taking into consideration technological feasibility, costs, and other factors.

1. What are the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards?

We are proposing to require reductions in diurnal emissions, fuel tank permeation, and fuel system hose permeation from new vessels beginning in 2008. The proposed standards are presented in Table III.C-1 and represent more than a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions and a 95 percent reduction in permeation from both plastic fuel tanks and from hoses. Section III.F.1 presents the test procedures associated with these proposed standards. Test temperatures

are presented in Table III.C-1 because they represent an important parameter in defining the emission levels. The proposed fuel tank venting and permeation standards are based on the total capacity of the fuel tank as described below. The proposed hose permeation standards are based on the inside surface area of the hose. We are not proposing standards for hot soak and refueling emissions, as described above, at this time.

Table III. C-1.—Proposed Evaporative Standards

Evaporative emission component

Proposed emission standard

Test temperature

Diurnal Venting

1.1 g/gallon/day

22.2-35.6°C (72-96°F)

Fuel tank permeation

0.08 g/gallon/day

40°C (104°F)

Hose permeation

5 g/m

/day

(15 g/m

/day with 15% methanol blend)

23°C (73°F)

The proposed emission standards are based on our evaluation of several fuel system technologies (described in Section III.H) which vary in cost and in efficiency. The proposed implementation date gives manufacturers about five years to comply after we expect to issue final standards . As discussed in more detail in Section III.H.1, this would help minimize costs by allowing fuel tank manufacturers time to implement controls in their tanks as designs normally turnover as opposed to forcing turnover premature to normal business practice. There are a multiplicity of tank sizes and shapes produced every year and the cost and efficiency of the available emission-control technologies will vary with these different configurations. In determining the proposed standards, we considered costs and focused on straightforward approaches that could potentially be used by all businesses. As discussed in Section H.3, we believe that the approaches in this proposal would comply with U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements for fuel systems. Given all this, in the 2008 time frame, we believe an average reduction of at least 80 percent in total evaporative emissions from new boats can be achieved, considering the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy and safety. We request comment on the proposed standards and implementation dates, on the units used for the fuel tank permeation standards (

i.e.

g/gallon/day versus g/m

/day), and on the certification provisions discussed below. We are also interested in comments regarding the cost of implementing the proposed standards. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific data when possible.

2. Will Averaging, Banking and Trading Be Allowed Across a Manufacturer's Product Line?

An emission-credit program is an important factor we take into consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under Clean Air Act section 213. An emission-credit program can reduce the cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the attainment of the standards earlier than would otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product planning and the opportunity for a more cost-effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. Emission-credit programs also create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which would allow certain vessels to be used to evaluate new technology. This can provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they apply it throughout their product line. This early introduction of lower-emitting technology improves the feasibility of achieving the standards and can provide valuable information for use in other regulatory programs that may benefit from similar technologies.

Emission-credit programs may involve averaging, banking, and trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more products at an emission level less stringent than the applicable emission standard, as long as the increased emissions are offset by products certified to a level more stringent than the applicable standard. The over-complying products generate credits that can be used by the under-complying products. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for differences in production volume and tank sizes among emission families. The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer's production must be at or below that level of the applicable emission standard. Early banking allows a manufacturer to certify early and generate credits for modifying their fuel system to the 2008 compliance strategy. In 2008 and later, the banking program would allow a manufacturer to generate credits and retain them for future use. Trading involves the sale of banked credits from one company to another.

We believe there is a variety of technology options that could be used to meet the proposed standards for diurnal emissions. By using different combinations of these technologies, manufacturers will be able to produce products that achieve a range of emission reductions. However, certain technologies may be more appropriate for different applications. In some cases, manufacturers may need flexibility in applying the emission-control technology to their products. For this reason, we are proposing that the 1.1 g/gallon/day diurnal emission standard be based a corporate average of a manufacturer's total production. To meet this average level, manufacturers would be able to divide their fuel tanks into different emission families and certify each of their emission families to a different Family Emissions Level (FEL). The FELs would then be weighted by sales volume and fuel tank capacity to determine the average level across a manufacturer's total production. An additional benefit of a corporate average approach is that it provides an incentive for developing new technology that can be used to achieve even larger emission reductions.

Participation in the ABT program would be voluntary. Any manufacturer could choose to certify each of its evaporative emission control families at levels which would meet the 1.1 g/gallon/day proposed standard and would then comply with the average by default. Some manufacturers may choose this approach as the could see it as less complicated to implement.

The following is an example of how the proposed averaging program for diurnal emissions could give a boat manufacturer flexibility in its production. Suppose a boat builder was selling 10 boats, three with 100-gallon fuel tanks and seven with 50-gallon fuel tanks. In this case, the boat builder constructs its own fuel tanks believes that an open-vent configuration without any emission control is necessary for the vessel application using the 100 gallon tanks. However, the manufacturer is able to use closed-vent fuel tanks with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in the

smaller fuel tanks. Using the design certification levels described in Section III..F.3, the 100 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 1.5 g/gallon/day and the 50 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 0.7 g/gallon/day. The manufacturer would generate debits for the three boats with 100 gallon fuel tanks using the following equation:

Debits = (1.5 g/gallon−1.1 g/gallon) × 3 tanks × 100 gallon/tank = 120 g

The manufacturer would need to use credits to cover these debits. The boats certified using a closed vent with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in this example would generate the following credits:

Credits = (1.1 g/gallon−0.7 g/gallon) × 7 tanks × 50 gallon/tank = 140 g

Because the credits are larger than the debits in this example, the boat builder would meet the proposed corporate average standard by certifying these ten boats.

We also propose to allow manufacturers to bank and trade emission credits. We are proposing that emission credits generated under this program have no expiration, with no discounting applied. The credits would belong to the entity that certifies the fuel tank. In the above example, the manufacturer would have 20 grams of credits (140 g−120 g = 20 g) that it could bank, either for trading or for later model year averaging.

Beginning in 2004, we propose to allow early banking for diurnal evaporative emissions. Under this program, manufacturers generate early credits in 2004 through 2007 for adding new evaporative emission control technology which would reduce diurnal emissions. These credits could be banked and then used in 2008 and later. As a precaution against creating an opportunity for windfall credits to be generated from fuel systems already below the average baseline level we would only allow credits to be generated below the proposed standard.

The following is an example of how early emission credits could be generated. In this example, a boat builder sells 20 boats in the 2004 to 2007 time period, each with a 50 gallon fuel tank. If this boat builder decided to sell one boat per year with a sealed tank and a 1.5 psi pressure relief valve (0.9 g/gallon/test), the boat builder would be able to generate emission credits using the following equation:

Credits = (1.1 g/gallon−0.9 g/gallon/test) × 4 tanks × 50 gallon/tank = 40 g

Over this time period, the boat builder would not generate any emission debits. Therefore, the boat builder would have 40 grams of credits that it could use in 2008 and later. We request comment on the proposed ABT program for diurnal emissions.

We are supportive of the concept of ABT in general. An ABT program can reduce cost and improve technological feasibility, and provide manufacturers with additional product planning flexibility. This allows EPA to consider emissions standards with the most appropriate level of stringency and lead time, as well as providing an incentive for the early introduction of new technology. However, while we are open to the idea of including the program in the rule, we are not at this time proposing to allow ABT for meeting the proposed fuel tank and hose permeation standards. In preliminary discussions, manufacturers indicated a desire to meet requirements directly rather than using an ABT concept. From EPA's perspective including an ABT program in the rule creates a long-term administrative burden that is not worth taking on if the industry does not intend to take advantage of the flexibility. While we believe that all fuel tanks and fuel hoses can meet the proposed permeation standards using straight forward technology as discussed in Section III.H, industry may find value in an early banking program, especially for fuel tanks. Under this concept, industry could certify some tanks early in exchange for time to delay some tanks. This could potentially be done on a one-on-one basis, or perhaps on a volumetric exchange basis. In addition, we do not preclude the value of an averaging and trading program as a compliance flexibility to meet the proposed permeation standards which represent a 95 percent reduction in permeation. We request comment on whether we should adopt an ABT program for hose and fuel tank permeation emissions.

3. Would These Standards Apply to Portable Fuel Tanks as Well?

For personal watercraft and most boats using SD/I or large outboard engines, the fuel tanks are permanently mounted in the vessel. However, small boats using outboard engines may have portable fuel tanks that can be removed from the boat and stored elsewhere. Because these fuel tanks are not sold as part of a boat, we would not require boat builders that use only portable fuel tanks to certify to the proposed evaporative emission standards described above for fuel tanks. The fuel tank manufacturer would have to certify to the fuel tank diurnal and permeation standards. For this purpose, we would consider a portable fuel tank to be one that is not permanently mounted on the boat, has a handle, and has no more than 12 gallons of fuel capacity.

Portable fuel tanks generally have a quick-connect that is used to detach the fuel line between the engine and tank. Once the fuel line is detached, this quick-connect will close. In addition, these tanks generally have a valve that either closes automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine or a valve that can be closed by the user which will prevent vapors from escaping from the tank when it is stored.

We propose to allow design-based certification of portable fuel tanks to the diurnal emission standard based on the criteria that they seal automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine and that they meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standard. We believe that the diurnal emissions from a typical portable fuel tank would be well below the proposed standard provided that it is sealed when not in use. Because the emission control depends on user practices, (such as disconnecting the tank after use) we propose not allowing any credits to be generated for diurnal emissions. We request comment on allowing design-based certification of portable fuel tanks that have valves that must be closed by the user.

4. Is EPA Proposing Voluntary “Blue Sky” Emissions Standards?

Several state and environmental groups and manufacturers of emissions controls have supported our efforts to develop incentive programs to encourage the use of emission control technologies that go beyond federal emission standards. In the final rule for land-based nonroad diesel engines, we included a program of voluntary standards for low-emitting engines, referring to these as “Blue Sky Series” engines (63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998). Since then, we have included similar programs in several of our other nonroad rules. The general purposes of such programs are to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products as well as create market choices and opportunities for environmental information for consumers regarding such products. The voluntary aspects of these programs, which in part provides an incentive for manufacturers willing to certify their products to more stringent standards than necessary, is an important part of the overall application of “Blue Sky Series” programs.

We are proposing a voluntary Blue Sky Series standard for diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. Under this proposal we are targeting

close to a 95-percent reduction in diurnal evaporative emissions beyond the proposed mandatory diurnal emission standards as a qualifying level for Blue Sky fuel tanks. The proposed Blue Sky standard is 0.1 g/gallon/day, which, as discussed in Section III.F.3, could be met through the use of technologies such as a low permeation bladder fuel tank.

Creating a voluntary standard for low diurnal emissions will be an important step in advancing emission control technology. While these are voluntary standards, they become binding on tanks produced under that certificate once a manufacturer chooses to participate. EPA certification will therefore provide protection against false claims of environmentally beneficial products. A manufacturer choosing to certify a fuel tank under this approach must comply with all the proposed certification requirements including useful life, warranty, and other general compliance provisions. This program would become effective when we finalize this rule.

For the program to be most effective, however, incentives should also be in place to motivate the production and sale of lower emitting fuel tanks. We solicit ideas that could encourage the creation and use of these incentive programs by users and state and local governments. We believe it is important that such incentive programs lead to a net benefit to the environment; therefore, we are proposing that fuel tanks with the Blue Sky designation not generate extra ABT credits for demonstrating compliance with this proposed standard. We also request comment on additional measures we could take to encourage development and introduction of low emission control technology. Finally, we request comment on the Blue Sky approach in general as it would apply to marine fuel tanks.

5. What Is Consumer-Choice Labeling?

California ARB has recently proposed consumer/environmental label requirements for outboard and personal watercraft engines. Under this approach, manufacturers would label their engines or vehicles based on their certified emission level. California has proposed three different labels to differentiate varying degrees of emission control—one for meeting the EPA 2006 standard, one for being 20 percent lower, and one for being 65 percent below. More detail on this concept is provided in the docket.

“Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Spark-Ignition Marine Engine Regulations,” Mail Out #MSC 99-15, June 22, 1999 (Docket A-2000-01, Document II-A-27).

We are considering a similar approach to labeling the vessels subject to this proposal. This would apply especially to consumer products. Consumer-choice labeling would give people the opportunity to consider varying emission levels as a factor in choosing specific models. This may also give the manufacturer an incentive to produce more of their cleaner models. A difficulty in designing a labeling program is in creating a scheme that communicates information clearly and simply to consumers. Also, some are concerned that other organizations could use the labeling provisions to mandate certain levels of emission control, rather than relying on consumer choice as a market-based incentive. We request comment on this approach for marine vessels.

D. Demonstrating Compliance

1. How Would I Certify My Products?

We are proposing to apply our emission standards to vessels, but allow certification of fuel tanks and hoses separately. For both cases, we are proposing a certification process similar to our existing program for other mobile sources. In the existing program, manufacturers test representative prototype designs and submit the emission data along with other information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity. As discussed in Section III.F.3, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to certify based on either design (for which there is data) or emissions testing. If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity allows the manufacturer to produce and sell the vessels or fuel systems described in the application in the U.S.

We are proposing that manufacturers certify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses by grouping them into emission families. Under this approach, vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses systems expected to have similar emission characteristics would be classified in the same emission family. The emission family definition is fundamental to the certification process and to a large degree determines the amount of testing required for certification. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or narrower emission families.

Once an emission family is certified, we would require every vessel, fuel tank, or hose a manufacturer produces from the emission family to have a label with basic identifying information. The proposed regulation text details the proposed requirements for design and content of the labels. We request comment on this approach.

2. Who Will be Responsible for Certifying the Vessel or Fuel System?

Every boat powered by a spark-ignition marine engine and every portable fuel tank would have to be covered by an emissions certificate (or separate certificates for fuel tanks and hoses). The proposed regulations require that compliance to the emission standards must be demonstrated before the sale of the boat (or tank, in the case of portable fuel tanks). However, to allow additional flexibility in complying with standards, we propose to allow tank and hose manufacturers to certify their product lines separately. Therefore, if a boat builder were to use certified fuel tanks and hoses, the boat builder could rely on the tank and hose manufacturers' certificates. The boat builder would only need to state that they are using components that, combined, will meet the proposed standard and properly install the fuel system. We request comment on this approach.

3. How Long Would My Vessel or Fuel System Have To Comply?

Manufacturers would be required to build vessels that meet the emission standards over each vessel's useful life. The useful life we adopt by regulation is intended to reflect the period during which vessels are designed to properly function without being remanufactured. We propose a regulatory useful life of ten years for marine evaporative emission control. This is consistent with the regulatory useful life for outboard marine engines. We use the same useful life based on the belief that engines and boats are intended to have the same design life. We request comment on the proposed useful life requirement.

4. What Warranty Requirements Apply to Certified Vessels and Fuel Systems?

Consistent with our current emission-control programs, we are proposing that manufacturers provide a design and defect warranty covering emission-related components. For marine vessels, we propose that the fuel systems be warranted for five years for the emission related components. The proposed regulations would require that the warranty period must be longer than this minimum period we specify if the manufacturer offers a longer warranty for the fuel system or any of its components; this includes extended warranties on the fuel system or any of its components that are available for an extra price. See the proposed regulation

language for a description of which components are emission-related. We request comment on whether the warranty provisions should apply only to the certificate holder or to all manufacturers of the fuel system components used by the certificate holder.

If an operator makes a valid warranty claim for an emission-related component during the warranty period, the manufacturer is generally obligated to replace the component at no charge to the operator. The manufacturer may deny warranty claims if the operator failed to do prescribed maintenance that contributed to the warranty claim.

We are also proposing a defect reporting requirement that applies separate from the emission-related warranty (see Section III.E.6). In general, defect reporting applies when a manufacturer discovers a pattern of component failures, whether that information comes from warranty claims, voluntary investigation of product quality, or other sources. We request comment on the proposed warranty and defect reporting requirements.

E. General Compliance Provisions

This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that would apply to marine vessels (or fuel tanks or hoses as appropriate) and are the same as those recently proposed for the nonroad engines September 2001 (

see

66 FR 51098). Several of these provisions apply not only to manufacturers, but also to operators, and others.

The following discussion of the general compliance provisions reflects the organization of the proposed regulatory text. For ease of reference, the subpart designations are provided. We request comment on all these provisions.

1. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, Subpart A)

This proposed regulation contains some general provisions, including general applicability and the definitions that apply to 40 CFR part 1068. Other provisions concern good engineering judgment, how we would handle confidential information; how the EPA Administrator delegates decision-making authority; and when we may inspect a manufacturer's facilities, vessels, or records.

The process of testing for evaporative emissions (or certifying based on design) and preparing an application for certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments. Section 1068.5 of the proposed regulations describes the methodology we propose to use to evaluate concerns related to manufacturers' use of good engineering judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such discretion. If we find a problem in these areas, we would take into account the degree to which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This subpart is consistent with provisions in the final rule for light-duty highway vehicles and commercial marine diesel engines.

2. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, Subpart B)

The proposed provisions in this subpart lay out a set of prohibitions for manufacturers and operators to ensure that vessels comply with the emission standards. These provisions are summarized below, but readers are encouraged to review the proposed regulatory text. These provisions are intended to help ensure that each new vessel or portable tank sold or otherwise entered into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant standards.

a. General prohibitions (§ 1068.100). This proposed regulation contains several prohibitions consistent with the Clean Air Act. Under this proposal, no one may sell a vessel or portable fuel tank in the United States without a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA, deny us access to relevant records, or keep us from entering a facility to test or inspect vessels or fuel system components. In addition, no one may remove or disable a device or design element that may affect an vessel's emission levels, or manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective, which we would consider tampering. We have generally applied the existing policies developed for tampering with highway engines and vehicles to nonroad engines.

Other proposed prohibitions reinforce manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification requirements. We would also prohibit selling parts that prevent emission-control systems from working properly. Finally, for vessels that are excluded for certain applications (i.e. solely for competition), we would generally prohibit using these vessels in other applications.

“Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy,” EPA memorandum from Norman D. Shulter, Office of General Counsel, June 25, 1974 (Docket A-2000-01; document II-B20).

These proposed prohibitions are the same as those that apply to other applications we have regulated in previous rules. Each prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as specified in Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 10-410, these maximum penalties are in 1970 dollars and should be periodically adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty amount for each violation is $27,500.

EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 (61 FR 69364, December 31, 1996). See also 40 CFR part 19.

b. In-service systems (§ 1068.110). The proposed regulations would prevent manufacturers from requiring owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts and give the manufacturer responsibility for servicing related to emissions warranty, leaving the responsibility for all other maintenance with the owner. This proposed regulation would also reserve our right to do testing (or require testing) to investigate potential defeat devices, as authorized by the Act.

3. Exemptions (Part 1068, Subpart C)

We are proposing to include several exemptions for certain specific situations. Most of these are consistent with previous rules. We highlight the new or different proposed provisions in the following paragraphs. In general, exempted vessels would need to comply with the requirements only in the sections related to the exemption. Note that additional restrictions could apply to importing exempted vessels (

see

Section III.E.4). Also, we are also proposing that we may require manufacturers (or importers) to add a permanent label describing that the vessel or fuel system component is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this would help ensure that imported vessels clear U.S. Customs without difficulty.

a. Testing. Anyone would be allowed to request an exemption for vessels or fuel system components used only for research or other investigative purposes.

b. Manufacturer-owned vessels and fuel systems. Vessels and fuel system components that are used by manufacturers for development or marketing purposes could be exempted from regulation if they are maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any revenue-generating service. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale.

c. Display vessels or fuel systems. Boat builders and fuel system component manufacturers would get an exemption if the vessels or fuel systems are for display only. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale.

d. National security. Manufacturers could receive an exemption for vessels or portable fuel tanks they can show are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense. For cases where the vessels will not be used on combat applications, the manufacturer would have to request the exemption with the endorsement of the procuring government agency.

e. Exported vessels. Vessels and portable fuel tanks that will be exported to countries that don't have the same emission standards as those that apply in the United States would be exempted without need for a request. This exemption would not be available if the destination country has the same emission standards as those in the United States.

f. Competition vessels. New vessels that are used solely for competition are excluded from regulations applicable to nonroad equipment. For purposes of our certification requirements, a manufacturer would receive an exemption if it can show that it produces the vessel specifically for use solely in competition. In addition, vessels that have been modified for use in competition would be exempt from the prohibition against tampering described above (without need for request). The literal meaning of the term “used solely for competition” would apply for these modifications. We would therefore not allow the vessel to be used for anything other than competition once it has been modified. This also applies to someone who would later buy the vessel, so we would require the person modifying the vessel to remove or deface the original label and inform a subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the exemption. The exemption would no longer apply.

4. Imports (Part 1068, Subpart D)

In general, the same certification requirements would apply to vessels whether they are produced in the U.S. or are imported. This proposed regulation also includes some additional provisions that would apply if someone wants to import an exempted or excluded vessel. For example, the importer would need written approval from us to import any exempted vessel; this is true even if an exemption for the same reason doesn't require approval for vessels produced in the U.S.

All the proposed exemptions described above for new vessels would also apply to importation, though some of these apply only on a temporary basis. If we approve a temporary exemption, it would be available only for a defined period and could require the importer to post bond while the vessel is in the U.S. There are several additional proposed exemptions that would apply only to imported vessels.

—

Identical configuration:

This would be a permanent exemption to allow individuals to import vessels that were designed and produced to meet applicable emission standards. These vessels may not have the emission label only because they were not intended for sale in the United States.

—

Repairs or alterations:

This would be a temporary exemption to allow companies to repair or modify vessels.

—

Diplomatic or military:

This would be a temporary exemption to allow diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified vessels during their term of service in the U.S.

We request comment on all the proposed exemptions for domestically produced and imported vessels.

5. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, Subpart E)

Clean Air Act section 206(b) gives us the authority and discretion in any program with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement auditing of production vessels and fuel systems. The proposed regulation text describes the audit procedures in greater detail. We intend generally to rely on inspecting manufacturers' designs to ensure they comply with emission standards. However, we would reserve our right to do selective enforcement auditing if we have reason to question the emission testing conducted or data reported by the manufacturer.

6. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, Subpart F)

We are proposing provisions for defect reporting. Specifically, we are proposing that manufacturers tell us when they learn of a defect occurring 25 times or more for emission families with annual sales up to 10,000 units. This threshold of defects would increase proportionately for larger families. While these thresholds would depend on sales, counting defects would not be limited to a single emission family. For example, if a manufacturer learns that operators reported 25 cases of problems with a limiting orifice from three different low-volume models spread over five years, that would trigger the need to file a defect report. This information could come from warranty claims, customer complaints, product performance surveys, or anywhere else. The proposed regulation language in § 1068.501 also provides information on the thresholds for triggering a further investigation for where a defect report is more likely to be necessary. We request comment on the proposed defect reporting provisions.

Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial number of vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses within an emission family, although properly used and maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the manufacturer will be required to remedy the problem and conduct a recall of the noncomplying emission family. However, we also recognize the practical difficulty in implementing an effective recall program for marine vessels. It would likely be difficult to properly identify all the affected owners. The response rate for affected owners or operators to an emission-related recall notice is also a critical issue to consider. We recognize that in some cases, recalling noncomplying marine vessels may not achieve sufficient environmental protection, so our intent is to generally allow manufacturers to nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential noncompliance situations. We expect that successful implementation of appropriate alternative remediation would obviate the need for us to make findings of substantial nonconformity under section 207 of the Act. We would consider alternatives nominated by a manufacturer based on the following criteria; the alternatives should—

(1) Represent a new initiative that the manufacturer was not otherwise planning to perform at that time, with a clear connection to the emission problem demonstrated by the emission family in question;

(2) Cost more than foregone compliance costs and consider the time value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone environmental benefit of the emission family;

(3) Offset at least 100 percent of the emission exceedance relative to that required to meet emission standards; and

(4) Be possible to implement effectively and expeditiously and to complete in a reasonable time.

These criteria would guide us in evaluating projects to determine whether their nature and burden is appropriate to remedy the environmental impact of the nonconformity. However, in no way would the consideration of such a provision diminish our statutory authority to direct a recall if that is deemed the best course of action. We request comment on this approach to addressing the Clean Air Act provisions related to recall. In addition, we request comment on the proposed requirement

to keep recall-related records until three years after a manufacturer completes all responsibilities under a recall order.

7. Public Hearings (Part 1068, Subpart G)

According to this regulation, manufacturers would have the opportunity to challenge our decision to suspend, revoke, or void an emission family's certificate. This also applies to our decision to reject the manufacturer's use of good engineering judgment (see § 1068.5). Part 1068, subpart G describes the proposed procedures for a public hearing to resolve such a dispute.

F. Proposed Testing Requirements

In order to obtain a certificate allowing sale of products meeting EPA emission standards, manufacturers generally must show compliance with such standards through emission testing. 40 CFR part 86 details specifications for test equipment and procedures that apply to highway vehicle evaporative emission testing. We propose to base the SI marine evaporative emission test procedures on this part. However, we propose to modify this test procedure somewhat to more accurately reflect the anticipated technology for meeting the evaporative emission standards proposed in this rule. We are also proposing design-based certification as an alternative to performing specific testing.

1. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Diurnal Emissions?

We propose that the evaporative emission test will be representative of ambient temperatures ranging from 22° C to 36° C (72° F to 96° F). Emissions would be measured in a Sealed Housing for Evaporative

Determination (SHED) over a 72-hour period. The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED and sealed except for the vent(s). The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED with all hoses, seals, and other components attached. The fuel tank would be filled completely and drained to 40-percent capacity with 9 RVP test fuel and soaked with an open vent until the fuel reached 22° C.

Immediately after the fuel reaches this temperature, the SHED would be purged, and the diurnal temperature cycling would begin. The temperature cycle is actually three repeats of a 24-hour diurnal trace and is described in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. During the test a minimum of 5 mph wind speed would be simulated using a fan. The final g/gallon/day result is based on the highest mass emission rate from these three 24-hour cycles, divided by the fuel tank capacity. Fuel tank capacity refers the maximum amount of fuel in the tank under in-use conditions.

Reid Vapor Pressure (psi). This is a measure of the volatility of the fuel. 9 RVP represents a typical summertime fuel in northern states.

These proposed test procedures are designed to simulate near worst case conditions for a typical boat. We believe that typical in-use fuel tanks will rarely be exposed to a temperature cycle larger than 24°F in a single day. However, in special applications where the fuel tank is exposed to direct sunlight, the tank temperature can change much more than 24°F over the course of a single day. Therefore, we are proposing that special test procedures that simulate the radiant effect of sunlight be used to test fuel tanks that will be exposed to direct sunlight. We would not require this for exposed fuel tanks that are shielded from the sun.

This diurnal cycle is consistent with the test requirements in 40 CFR part 86 for highway vehicles. However, the test procedure for highway vehicles includes engine operation and hot soaks.

One purpose of the engine operation is to purge the charcoal canister that collects evaporative emissions in highway applications. However, we are excluding engine operation from the evaporative test procedures for boats using SI marine engines because we do not anticipate the use of charcoal canisters in these applications. Another purpose of running the engine and the purpose of the hot soaks is to measure evaporative emissions due to the heating of the engine and exhaust system. However, this would significantly increase the difficulty of the SHED testing due to the large size of most boats. Because most boats are operated only 50 hours per year, these running loss and hot soak emissions are considerably smaller than diurnal and permeation emissions. In addition, most of the emission-control strategies that could be used to meet the proposed standards would also reduce running loss and hot soak emissions. We request comment on the proposed test procedures for determining evaporative emissions from boats using SI marine engines.

Hot soak emissions are those caused by residual heat in the engine and exhaust system immediately after the engine is shut down. Running loss emissions are those caused by engine and exhaust heat while the engine is operating.

2. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions?

a. Fuel tanks. We propose that tank permeation be based on a test procedure consistent with the Coast Guard requirements in 33 CFR 183.620. Specifically, the rate of permeation from the tank will be measured at 40°C using the same test fuel as for the diurnal testing. We request comment on using 40°C as the test temperature or if 23°C should be used to be consistent with the hose testing. Our understanding is that 40°C represents higher temperatures that may be seen in an engine compartment during operation while 23°C represents typical ambient conditions. If a lower test temperature were used, the standards would need to be adjusted appropriately. Based on data presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, the standards would have to be reduced on the order of 50 percent for every 10°C reduction in test temperature. We also request comment on using ASTM Fuel “C” and a 15% methanol blend to be consistent with the hose permeation test procedures or on using 10% ethanol consistent with on-highway evaporative emission testing. The tank would have to be filled and soaked for a minimum of 60 days to ensure that permeation emissions are accurately reflected in the test procedure. The tank would be sealed during testing, and care would have to be made that the environment in which the tank was tested was continuously purged of vapor to prevent the saturation of vapor with hydrocarbons around the outside of the tank. Permeation would be measured through weight loss in the tank or using equivalent procedures.

We also request comment on whether we should require specific durability test procedures for fuel tanks. Such durability tests could include pressure vacuum cycle testing, slosh testing, and temperature cycling. Information on these tests is included in the docket.

Draft SAE Information Report J1769, “Test Protocol for Evalution of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non-Metallic Fuel Tanks,” (Docket A-2000-01, document IV-A-24).

b. Hoses. We propose to use the current practices for measuring permeation from marine hoses that are specified in SAE J 1527. Under this procedure, the hose is tested at 23°C with both ASTM Fuel “C” (50% toluene, 50% isooctane) and with a blend on fuel “C” with 15% methanol. SAE J 1527 sets permeation limits for hose of 100 g/m

/day for fuel C and 300 g/m

/day for the 15% methanol blend. Consistent with this relationship, we propose to allow the permeation rate to

be three times higher than the proposed standard for fuel C when the hose is tested on the 15% methanol blend. Because permeation rates double, roughly, with every 10°C increase in temperature, the test procedure has a large effect on emissions measured for a given hose material. In addition, the temperature effects may be greater for some materials than for others. For low permeation non-metal fuel lines used in automotive applications, the current practices are specified in SAE J 2260 and SAE J 1737. Under these test procedures, the hose permeation is measured at 60°C with an 85%-15% blend of fuel “C” and methanol. We request comment on using the higher test temperature in the automotive test procedure. We also request comment on requiring testing using a 10% ethanol blend consistent with on-highway evaporative emission testing.

3. Could I Certify Based on Engineering Design Rather Than Through Testing?

We recognize that performing SHED testing could be cost-prohibitive for many fuel tank manufacturers or boat builders. In addition, many of the technologies that can be used to reduce evaporative emissions are straightforward design strategies. For these reasons, we propose that manufacturers have the option of certifying to the diurnal evaporative emission requirements based on fuel system designs, as described in the proposed regulations. Test data would be required to certify fuel tanks and hoses to the proposed permeation standards. However, we would allow carryover of test data from year to year for a given emission control design. We believe the cost of testing tanks and hose designs for permeation would be considerably lower than running variable temperature diurnal testing. In addition, the data could be carried over from year to year, and there is a good possibility that the broad emission family concepts under consideration could lead to minimum testing. For instance, a hose manufacturer could test its hose design once, and all the boat builders who use this hose could incorporate this data in their certification applications.

We are proposing design based certification to the tank permeation standard for one case. We would consider an aluminum fuel tank to meet the design criteria for a low permeation fuel tank. However, we would not consider this design to be any more effective than a low permeation fuel tank for the purposes of any sort of credit program. Although aluminum is impermeable, seals and gaskets used on the fuel tank may not be. The design criteria for the seals and gaskets would be that either they would not have a total exposed surface area exceeding 1000 mm

, or the seals and gaskets would have to be made of a material with a permeation rate of 10 g/m

/day or less at 23°C.

The rest of this section discusses designs that we propose to be acceptable for design-based certification to the proposed diurnal emission standard. The emission data we used to develop these proposed design options are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Additional testing may help us more precisely set the appropriate emission levels associated with each design. Manufacturers wanting to use designs other than those we discuss here would have to perform the above test procedures for their design. However, once a new design is proven, we could add this new design to the list of designs for this certification flexibility and assign it to the appropriate averaging bin. For example, if several manufacturers were to pool their resources to test a diurnal emission control strategy and submit this data to EPA, we would consider this particular strategy and emission level as a new design level for design based certification. We request comment on the concept of design-based certification and on the technologies and associated emission levels discussed below. Section III.H.3 presents a more detailed description of what each of these technologies are and how they can be used to reduce evaporative emissions.

We have identified several technologies for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. The design levels proposed below represent our understanding of the effectiveness of various emission control technologies over the proposed test procedure. Table III.F.1 summarizes design-based emission levels associated with several emission control strategies. These control strategies are discussed in more detail after the table. Manufacturers would be required to submit information demonstrating that the components they use would be durable over the useful life of the vessel. For tanks that allow pressure build-up, a low-pressure vacuum-relief valve would also be necessary for the engine to be able to draw fuel during operation. Also, in the cases where anti-siphon valves are used with these designs, the anti-siphon system would have to be designed such that fuel could not spill out through this valve when the system is under pressure.

Table III.F-1.—Emission Levels for Design Based Certification to the Proposed Diurnal Emission Standard

Emission level

[g/gallon/day]

Technology

1.5

Baseline (open vent with a normal length vent hose).

1.3

Near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation (R-value ≥15), or closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve.

1.1*

Closed vent, 1.0 psi relief valve.

0.9

Closed vent, 1.5 psi relief valve.

0.7

Closed vent, 2.0 psi relief valve.

0.5

Closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve with a volume compensating air bag.

0.1

Bladder fuel tank.

* Proposed average standard for diurnal emissions.

1.5 g/gal/test:

Typical fuel tanks used in boats currently have an open vent to the atmosphere through a vent hose. This vent is intended to prevent pressure from building up in the fuel tank. This uncontrolled fuel tank configuration would be considered to be at this level based on the data presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft RSD.

1.3 g/gal/test:

The design criteria for this level would be a fuel tank with a near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation. The limited flow orifice would be defined as having a maximum cross-sectional area defined by the following equation: Area [mm

] = 0.04 x fuel tank capacity [gallons]. For example, a 20 gallon tank would need an orifice with no more than a 1 mm diameter. This size orifice is sufficient to limit diffusion of hydrocarbons without causing significant pressure to build in the fuel tank. The design criteria for the insulation would be to use insulation having at least an R-value of 15 (see section III.H.3.b).

1.3 g/gal/test:

An alternative design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure-relief valve that would open at a pressure of 0.5 psi.

1.1 g/gal/test:

The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure-relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.0 psi.

0.9 g/gal/test:

The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure-relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.5 psi.

0.7 g/gal/test:

The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank

with a pressure-relief valve that would open at a pressure of 2.0 psi.

0.5 g/gal/test:

The design criterion for this level would be a volume-compensating air bag used in conjunction with a 0.5 psi pressure-relief valve if the bag is designed to fill 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity when inflated. This bag would have no leaks to the fuel tank and would be constructed out of a non permeable material.

0.1 g/gal/test:

The design criterion for this level would be to use a bladder tank. The bladder would have to be sealed and built of low permeable material. This bladder would collapse as fuel was drawn out of it and expand when refueled thereby eliminating the vapor space needed for diurnal vapor generation.

G. Special Compliance Provisions

The scope of this proposal includes many boat and fuel tank manufacturers that have not been subject to our regulations or certification process. Many of these manufacturers are small businesses for which a typical regulatory program may be burdensome. This section describes the proposed special compliance provisions designed to address this concern. As described in Section VIII.B, the report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel addresses the concerns of small manufacturers of gasoline fuel tanks for marine applications and small boat builders that use these tanks.

To identify representatives of small businesses for this process, we used the definitions provided by the Small Business Administration for fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders (less than 500 employees). Twelve small businesses agreed to serve as small-entity representatives. These companies represented a cross-section of both gasoline and diesel engine marinizers, as well as boat builders.

In this industry sector, we believe some of the burden reduction approaches presented in the Panel Report should be applied to all businesses. All of the marine fuel tank manufacturers except for one qualify as small businesses. We believe the purpose of these options is to reduce the potential burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large product line. For this reason, we often times also consider the production volume when making decisions regarding flexibilities. The one fuel tank manufacturer not qualifying as a small business still has low production volumes of marine fuel tanks, thus we believe some flexibilities should be made available to this manufacturer as well.

Three of the five burden reduction approaches discussed in the Panel

Report are design-based certification, allowance to use emission credits with design-based certification, and a 5-year lead time with early banking. As discussed above, we are proposing these approaches for all manufacturers certifying marine fuel tanks to the proposed evaporative emission standards. This section discusses the other two approaches in the Panel Report and how we propose to apply them to the marine industry.

1. Broadly Defined Product Certification Families

To certify to the evaporative emission standards, we propose that manufacturers would have to classify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses in emission families based on having similar emission characteristics. We would expect to differentiate families by fuel type, diurnal control technology, and the tank and hose material/treatment. The manufacturer would then certify each of these evaporative emission families. The purpose of emission families has traditionally been to reduce testing burden by allowing a family to be certified based on the test results from its highest-emitting member.

For highway evaporative emission requirements, each manufacturer divides its products into several evaporative emission families based on characteristics of the fuel system. These characteristics include: fuel type, charcoal canister type and capabilities, seals, valves, hoses, and tank material. The manufacturer then has to certify each of these evaporative emission families. Unlike highway vehicles, evaporative emission controls for marine vessels are not likely to rely on charcoal canisters as a control technology. Furthermore, most or all SI marine engines will use gasoline and most manufacturers do not make both plastic and aluminum fuel tanks. Most manufacturers will therefore have very few emission families and it will be unlikely that emission families could be much broader than discussed here. In addition, broadening emission families may not reduce compliance burden, considering the proposed design-based certification approach. However, we request comment on whether there are reasonable ways to broaden these engine families, and whether or not small businesses would benefit from any such broadened definitions.

2. Hardship Provisions for Small Businesses Producing Marine Fuel Tanks

There are two types of hardship provisions. The first type of hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time (

e.g.

, up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with the standards.

Hardship relief could include requirements for interim emission reductions and/or purchase and use of emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (

i.e.

, supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject vessels would have a major impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details.

H. Technological Feasibility

We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use to meet our proposed evaporative emission standards. We have collected and will continue to collect emission test data on a wide range of evaporative emission control technology. The design-based certification levels discussed above are based on this test data and we may amend the list of approved designs and emission levels as more data become available.

1. Implementation Schedule

There are several strategies available to reduce evaporative emissions (diurnal and permeation) from marine fuel tanks. Some of these may require changes to the tank design, structure, and material that would cause a change in the molds used to make the plastic tanks. These molds need to be replaced periodically as part of normal manufacturing practices. Small manufacturers using rotational molding to produce plastic fuel tanks have commented that the molds covering the majority of their production line have about a five-year life before replacement. However, for the low-

production fuel tanks, they may use their molds for 10 to 15 years. They have stated that their costs would be greatly reduced if they could turn over fuel tank molds in a manner more consistent with their current business practice, rather than doing so solely in response to an evaporative control requirement.

We recognize that tank manufacturers and boat builders will need time to choose and implement the evaporative emission control strategies that work best for them. We believe the implementation date of 2008, coupled with the option for early banking, provides sufficient lead time beyond the anticipated publication of the final rule. This 5-year lead time is consistent with the general turnover schedule of most molds used in plastic fuel tank production. We request comment whether there are small entities whose product line is dominated by tanks for which the molds are turned over at a slower rate.

Surface treatments to reduce tank permeation are widely used today in other container applications and the technology and production facilities needed to conduct this process exist. While there is definitely value in an organized approach to compliance on the part of the manufacturers, the lead time requirement is largely driven by modifications needed to comply with the diurnal requirements. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the tank permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007.

Low permeation marine hose is used today on some vessels that is close to meeting the proposed standards. In addition, the development time for new hose designs is on the order of 1-2 years. Therefore, we request comment on whether an earlier implementation date for the proposed permeation standards for marine hoses would be appropriate. We are proposing an implementation date for hose permeation standards of 2008, consistent with the fuel tank standards, because hose fitting modifications may be required which could affect tank design. Manufacturers have commented that low permeation hoses require special connection fittings with better tolerances than seen on many fittings today. Automotive fuel lines also already exist that meet the proposed permeation standards. However, manufacturers have raised concerns with the cost of applying these less flexible fuel lines in marine applications. In any case, using these automotive fuel lines would probably also require fitting changes. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the hose permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007.

2. Standard Levels

We tested several diurnal emission-control strategies using the procedures discussed in VI.D.1. Based on this testing we believe there are several emission-control technologies that could be used to significantly reduce diurnal emissions. Also, we have identified several strategies for reducing permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. We recognize that some of these technologies may be more desirable than others for some manufacturers, and we recognize that different strategies for equal emission reductions may be better for different applications. Specific examples of technology that could be used to meet the proposed standards would be fuel tank with a 1 psi valve in the vent, a fluorinated plastic fuel tank, and hose constructed with a thermoplastic barrier. We present several other technological approaches below.

3. Technological Approaches

We believe several emission-control technologies can be used to reduce evaporative emissions from marine fuel tanks. In addition, there are a few technologies that are used in other applications that may not be as effective here. The advantages and disadvantages of various emission-control strategies are discussed below. Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document presents more detail on these technologies and Chapter 5 provides information on the estimated costs.

a. Closed fuel vent with pressure relief. Evaporative emissions are formed when the fuel heats up, evaporates, and passes through the vent into the atmosphere. By closing that vent, evaporative emissions are prevented from escaping. However, as vapor is generated, pressure builds up in fuel tank. Once the fuel cools back down, the pressure subsides.

The U.S Coast Guard safety regulations (33 CFR part 183) require that fuel tanks be able to withstand pressure up to 3 psi and must be able to pass a pressure-impulse test which cycles the tank from 0 to 3 psi 25,000 times. The Coast Guard also requires that these fuel tanks be vented such that the pressure in the tank in-use never exceeds 80 percent of the pressure that the tank is designed to withstand without leaking. The American Boat and Yacht Council makes the additional recommendation that the vent line should have a minimum inner diameter of

7/16

inch (H-24.13). However, these recommended practices also note that “there may be EPA or state regulations that limit the discharge of hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere from gasoline fuel systems. The latest version of these regulations should be consulted.”

To prevent pressure from building too high, we first considered a 2 psi pressure-relief valve. This is a typical automotive rating and is within the Coast Guard requirements. With this valve, vapors would be retained in the tank until 2 psi of pressure is built up in the tank due to heating of the fuel. Once the tank pressure reached 2 psi, just enough of the vapor would be vented to the atmosphere to maintain 2 psi of pressure.

As the fuel cooled, the pressure would decrease. We estimate that this would achieve about a 55-percent reduction in evaporative emissions over the proposed test procedure. A 1 psi valve would achieve a reduction of about half of this over the proposed test procedure. However, in use, this reduction could be much greater because the test procedure is designed to represent a hotter than average day. On a more mild day there could be less pressure buildup in the tank and the valve may not even need to open.

As discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, we tested fuel tanks for diurnal emissions with pressure relief valves ranging from 0.4 to 2.2 psi.

With the use of a sealed system, a low-pressure vacuum-relief valve would also be necessary so air could be drawn into the tank to replace fuel drawn from the tank when the engine is running.

Manufacturers of plastic fuel tanks have expressed concern that their tanks are not designed to operate under pressure. For instance, although they will not leak at 3 psi, rotationally molded fuel tanks with large flat surfaces could begin deforming at pressures as low as 0.5 psi. At higher pressures, the deformation would be greater. This deformation would affect how the tank is mounted in the boat. Also, fuel tank manufacturers commented that some of the fittings or valves used today may not work properly under even 2 psi of pressure. Finally, they commented that backup pressure-relief valves would be necessary for safety.

We believe that, with enough lead time, fuel tank manufacturers will be able to redesign their fuel tanks to be more resistant to deformation under pressure. By reducing the size of flat areas on the tank through adding contours to the tank, or by increasing the thickness of the tank walls, the fuel tanks can be designed to resist deformation under pressure. Portable

plastic fuel tanks are generally sealed without any pressure relief and are designed to withstand any pressure that may occur under these conditions. We also believe that if certain fittings and valves cannot withstand pressure today, they can be designed to do so. In addition, we are proposing a standard which can be met with a 1 psi valve which we believe would require significantly less modification to current tanks than designing for 3 psi of pressure. In developing this level we considered first 2.0 psi valves which is consistent with on-highway fuel tanks and is below the Coast Guard tank pressure requirement. However, we proposed a standard based on a 1.0 psi pressure relief valve to give manufacturers some margin to minimize fuel tank deflection under pressure. Although we do not consider this to be a feasibility issue, we recognize that if the tank were to deflect too much in-use that either the fuel tank compartment would have to be enlarged to accommodate this expansion or a smaller fuel tank would need to be used. We request comment on this issue.

Below, we discuss strategies that could be used in conjunction with a sealed system to minimize the build-up of pressure in the fuel tank. Such technologies are insulation, volume-compensating air bags, and bladder fuel tanks. With the use of these technologies, the same emission reductions could be achieved with a pressure-relief valve set to allow lower vent pressures. Finally the structure of the proposed standards gives manufacturers the flexibility to meet the emission limits without building up pressure in the fuel tank.

b. Limited flow orifice. An alternative to using a pressure-relief valve to hold vapors in the fuel tank would be to use a limited-flow orifice. This would essentially be a plug in the vent line with a pin hole in it that would be small enough to limit vapor flow out of the fuel tank. However, the orifice size may be so small that there would be a risk of fouling. In addition, an orifice designed for a maximum of 2 psi under worst-case conditions may not be very effective at lower temperatures. We tested a 17-gallon tank with a 75-micron diameter limited-flow orifice over the proposed diurnal test procedure and saw close to a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions. The peak pressure in this test was 1.6 psi.

c. Insulated fuel tank. Another option we evaluated was insulating either the fuel tank or the compartment around the fuel tank. Rather than capturing the vapors in the fuel tank, we minimize the fuel heating, which therefore minimizes the vapor generation. This could be used in conjunction with a limited-flow orifice to reduce the loss of vapor through the vent line due to diffusion. Our test data suggest that a 50-percent reduction in emissions over the proposed test procedure can be achieved using insulation with an R-value of 15.

However, it should be noted that today's fuel tanks, when installed in boats, have some amount of “inherent insulation.” This is especially true for boats that remain in the water. This inherent insulation is considered in our baseline emission factors. Additional control could be achieved with the use of a pressure-relief valve coupled with an insulated tank. Note that an insulated tank could maintain the same emission control while using a pressure-relief valve that allowed lower peak pressures, compared with a tank that was not insulated.

R-value measures resistance to heat flow and is defined in 16 CFR 460.5.

The method of insulation would have to be consistent with U.S. Coast Guard fuel system requirements. These requirements regulate the resistance to fuels, oils and other chemicals, water adsorption, compressive strength, and density of foam used to encase fuel tanks. In addition, the Coast Guard requirements protect against corrosion of metal fuel tanks due to foam pulling away from the fuel tank causing water to be trapped or from improper drainage. There are several methods that could be used to insulate the fuel tank while maintaining safe practices. These methods include an insulation barrier within the walls of the fuel tank, insulating the compartment that the tank is in rather than the tank itself, and foaming the tank in place by filling the entire compartment the tank is in. The Coast Guard requirements and potential insulation strategies are discussed further in Chapter 3 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.

d. Volume-compensating air bag. Another concept for minimizing pressure in a sealed fuel tank is through the use of a volume-compensating air bag. The purpose of the bag is to fill up the vapor space in the fuel tank above the fuel. By minimizing the vapor space, the equilibrium concentration of fuel vapors occupies a smaller volume, resulting in a smaller mass of vapors. As the equilibrium vapor concentration increases with increasing temperature, the vapor space expands, which forces air out of the bag through the vent to atmosphere. Because the bag volume decreases to compensate for the expanding vapor space, total pressure inside the fuel tank stays very close to atmospheric pressure.

Once the fuel tank cools as ambient temperature goes down, the resulting vacuum in the fuel tank will make the bag expand again by drawing air from the surrounding ambient. Our test results showed that pressure could be kept below 0.8 psi using a bag with a capacity equal to 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity. Therefore, the use of a volume-compensating air bag could allow a manufacturer to reduce the pressure limit on its relief valve.

The Ideal Gas Law states that pressure and volume are inversely related. By increasing the volume of the vapor space, the pressure can be held constant.

We are still investigating materials that would be the most appropriate for the construction of these bags. The bags would have to hold up in a fuel tank for several years and resist permeation, while at the same time being light and flexible. One such material we are considering is fluorosilicon fiber. Also, the bag would have to be positioned to avoid interfering with other fuel system components such as the fuel pick-up or catching on any sharp edges in the fuel tank. We estimate that this would be more expensive than using a pressure relief valve with some reinforcement of the fuel tank for pressure; however, it is also more effective at emission control and would minimize pressure in the fuel tank.

e. Bladder fuel tank. Probably the most effective technology for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks is through the use of a collapsible fuel bladder. In this concept, a low permeation bladder is installed in the fuel tank to hold the fuel. As fuel is drawn from the bladder, the vacuum created collapses the bladder. Therefore, there is no vapor space and no pressure build up from fuel heating. Because the bladder is sealed, there would be no vapors vented to atmosphere. This option could also significantly reduce emissions during refueling that would normally result from dispensed fuel displacing vapor in the fuel tank. We have received comments that this would be cost-prohibitive because it could increase costs from 30 to 100 percent depending on tank size. However, bladder fuel tanks have positive safety implications as well and are already sold by at least one manufacturer to meet market demand in niche applications.

f. Charcoal canister. The primary evaporative emission-control device used in automotive applications is a charcoal canister. With this technology, vapor generated in the tank is vented through a charcoal canister. The

activated charcoal collects and stores the hydrocarbons. Once the engine is running, purged air is drawn through the canister and the hydrocarbons are burned in the engine. These charcoal canisters generally are about a liter in size and have the capacity to store three days of vapor over the test procedure conditions. This technology does not appear to be attractive for marine fuel tanks because boats may sit for weeks at a time without the engine running. Once the canister is saturated, it provides no emission control.

g. Floating fuel and vapor separator. Another concept used in some stationary engine applications is a floating fuel and vapor separator. Generally small, impermeable plastic balls are floated in the fuel tank. The purpose of these balls is to provide a barrier between the surface of the fuel and the vapor space. However, this strategy does not appear to be effective for marine fuel tanks. Because of the motion of the boat, the fuel sloshes and the barrier would be continuously broken. Even small movements in the fuel could cause the balls to rotate and transfer fuel to the vapor space. In addition, the unique geometry of many fuel tanks could cause the balls to collect in one area of the tank.

h. Low permeability fuel tanks. We estimate that more than a quarter of the evaporative emissions from boats with plastic fuel tanks come from permeation through the walls of the fuel tanks. In highway applications, non-permeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol or nylon between two layers of polyethylene. However, blow molding has high fixed costs and therefore requires high production volumes to be cost effective. For this reason, this manufacturing technique is generally only used for portable fuel tanks which are generally produced in higher volumes. For these tanks, however, multi-layer fuel tank construction may be an inexpensive and effective approach to controlling permeation emissions

Manufacturers of rotationally molded plastic fuel tanks generally have low production volumes and have commented that they could not produce their tanks with competitive pricing in any other way. Currently, they use cross-link polyethylene which is a low density material that has relatively high rate of permeation. One material that could be used as a low permeation alternative in the rotational molding process is nylon. The use of nylon in the construction of these fuel tanks would reduce permeation by more than 95 percent when compared to cross-link polyethylene such as is used today.

Another type of barrier technology for fuel tanks would be to treat the surfaces of a plastic fuel tanks with fluorine. The fluorination process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are replaced by larger fluorine atoms which a barrier on surface of the fuel tank. In this process, fuel tanks are be stacked in a steel container. The container is then be voided of air and flooded with fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. As a result of this process, both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel tank would be treated. As an alternative, for tanks that are blow molded, the inside surface of the fuel tank can be exposed to fluorine during the blow molding process. A similar barrier strategy is called sulfonation where sulfur trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed polyethylene to form sufonic acid groups on the surface. Either of these processes can be used to reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent. Achieving reductions at this level repeatedly would require tanks with consistent material quality, amount, and composition including pigments and any additive packages. This would enable process and efficiency optimization and consistency in the effectiveness of surface treatment processes.

Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can expand by as much as three percent due to saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could affect the effectiveness of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. We believe that this will not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of these surface treatments. The California Air Resources Board has performed extensive permeation testing on portable fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by first performing a durability procedure where the fuel container is cycled a minimum of 1000 times between 5 psi and -1 psi. In addition, the fuel containers are soaked with fuel for a minimum of four weeks prior to testing. Their test data, presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, show that fluorination and sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing.

The U.S. Coast Guard has raised the issue that any process applied to marine fuel tanks to reduce permeation would also need to pass Coast Guard flame resistance requirements. We are not aware of any reason that a fluorination or sulfonation surface treatment would affect the flame resistance of a marine fuel tank. Since this issue was raised, we contracted to have a fluorinated fuel tank tested. This tank passed the U.S. Coast Guard flame resistance test.

Also, about a third of marine fuel tanks used today are made of aluminum. Hydrocarbons do not permeate through aluminum.

We request comment on the low-permeable materials and strategies discussed above, and other options that are available, for use in marine fuel tanks and on their cost and effectiveness.

i. Low permeability hoses. We also estimate that permeation through fuel and vapor hoses make up more 40 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats. This fraction is higher for boats using aluminum fuel tanks, because they are inherently low in tank permeation emissions. By replacing rubber hoses with low permeability hoses, evaporative emissions through the fuel supply and vent hoses can be reduced by more than 95 percent.

Marine fuel hoses are designated as either Type A or B and either Class 1 or 2.

Type A hose passes the U.S. Coast Guard fire test while Type B represents hose that has not passed this test. Class 1 hose is intended for fuel feed lines where the hose is normally in contact with fuel and has a permeation limit of 100 g/m2/day at 23°C. Class 2 hose is intended for vent lines and fuel fill necks where fuel is not continuously in contact with the hose and has a permeation limit of 300 g/m2/day at 23°C. In general practice, most boat builders use Class 1 hose for vent lines as well as fuel lines to prevent having to carry two hose types. However, most fuel fill necks, which have a much larger diameter and are constructed differently, are Class 2 hose. Marine hose with permeation rates of less than one tenth of the Class 1 permeation limit is also used by some boat builders today for fuel and vent lines. Given sufficient lead time, we believe that hose manufacturers can modify their designs to use thicker barriers or lower permeating materials to further reduce the permeation rates from this hose.

Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard, “Marine Fuel Hoses,” SAE J 1527 (Docket A-2000-01; document IV-A-19).

Low permeability fuel supply and vent hoses produced today are generally constructed in one of two ways: either with a low permeability layer or by using a low permeability rubber blend. One hose design, already used in some marine applications, uses a

thermoplastic layer between two rubber layers to control permeation. This thermoplastic barrier may either be nylon or ethyl vinyl acetate. In automotive applications, other barrier materials are used such as fluoroelastomers and fluoroplastics such as Teflon ®. An added benefit of low permeability lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to conduct electricity and therefore can prevent the buildup of static charges. Currently, fuel fill necks used in marine applications generally are not made with barrier layers and permeate more than fuel supply lines. However, hoses are produced for chemical applications by the same companies, using the same process, that include barrier layers. This same production methodology could be used for marine fuel hoses. Also, EPA also expects low permeability fill neck hoses to be used in automotive applications in the 2004 as a result of the Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative emission standards.

An alternative approach to reducing the permeability of marine hoses would be fluorination. This process would be performed in a manner similar to discussed above for fuel tanks.

Fuel lines used to meet the proposed standards would also have to meet Coast Guard specifications in 33 CFR 183 which include a flame resistance test. Although the automotive standard, SAE J 2260, does not specifically include a flame resistance test like that included in the Coast Guard specifications, manufacturers generally design (and test) their hoses to be flame resistant.

4. Summary

EPA believes that the proposed standards for evaporative emissions from boats using spark-ignition marine engines reasonably reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of available technology. Marine fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders will need to use the five years of lead time to select, design, and produce evaporative emission-control strategies that will work best for their product line. We expect that meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft RSD.

We believe there are several options that can be used to reduce diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. This, coupled with the proposed emission-credit program for diurnal emissions, gives manufacturers flexibility in how they choose to comply with the proposed standards. We believe the most likely approach meeting the proposed emission diurnal standard will be for manufacturers to use a closed vent with a 1 psi pressure relief valve. Although we evaluated several technologies that have the potential to achieve larger emission reductions, we believe that more stringent standards are not appropriate at this time. This industry is primarily made up of small manufacturers and would likely need more time to develop technology options for further emission control. In addition, there are a wide range of fuel tank designs and applications in the recreational marine market, and the technologies discussed above may not be appropriate for all applications. Given these issues, and U.S. Coast Guard requirements, we believe that the flexibility given in the proposed diurnal requirements is appropriate.

The proposed permeation standards are based on the effective application of low permeable materials or surface treatments. This is essentially a step change in technology; therefore, we believe that even if we were to propose a less stringent permeation standard, these technology options would likely still be used. In addition, this technology is relatively inexpensive and can achieve meaningful emission reductions. The proposed standards are expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in permeation emissions from marine fuel tanks and hoses. We believe that more stringent standards could result in significantly more expensive materials without large additional emission reduction. We request comment on our proposed permeation emission standards.

IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines

This section describes our current thinking regarding exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines (SD/I). We are not proposing SD/I exhaust emission standards at this time. We are investigating whether the application of catalysts on marine engines could be a cost-effective way to control emissions. We believe, that setting catalyst-forcing standards now would be premature, given the open issues related to catalyst use in the marine environment. However, we are continuing our efforts to develop and demonstrate catalytic control on SD/I marine engines in the laboratory and in-use, and will place new information in the docket when it is available. In fact, we intend to follow with another rulemaking in the future that will address exhaust emissions from SD/I engines once we have collected more information. We intend to include outboards and personal watercraft in this rulemaking as well.

There are three primary approaches that we believe could be used to reduce exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines. The first is through lower emission calibration of the engine, especially through the use of electronic fuel injection. This could be implemented quickly, but would only result in small emission reductions. The second approach would be through the use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) which could be used to get a 40 to 50-percent reduction in NO

. Although this would be feasible, it would not be nearly as effective at controlling emissions as the third approach of using catalytic control. We believe catalytic control could be used to achieve much larger emission reductions than either of the first two approaches; therefore, we intend to implement catalyst-based standards as soon as we believe it is feasible. We believe we can implement these stringent standards sooner if we do not set an interim standard based on EGR. Manufacturers have raised concerns that if they were to focus on designing for an EGR-based standard, it would divert resources needed for catalyst development.

We are in the process of resolving technical issues with the use of catalysts in a marine environment. Ongoing testing has shown promising results; we believe that, in the near future, continued efforts will resolve the remaining issues raised by the marine industry and by Coast Guard. One issue is that operation in the marine environment could result in unique durability problems for catalysts. Another issue to be addressed in developing this technology is ensuring that salt water does not reach the catalyst so that salt does not accumulate on the catalyst and reduce its efficiency. A third issue is addressing any potential safety concerns.

As discussed in Section I.F, California ARB has recently put into place HC+NO

exhaust emission standards for SD/I marine engines. These standards include a cap on baseline emission levels in 2003 followed by catalyst-forcing standards (5 g/kW-hr HC+NO

) phased in from 2007 through 2009. These standards are contingent on technology reviews in 2003 and 2005.

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.